Thursday, 27 August 2026

Clause 17 further considered (14:03)

Michael GALEA: Before the question time break we were discussing Dr Heath’s amendment, and we were in the middle of asking about an offender committing unacceptable conduct against a number of employees in a store or on a worksite. I gave the example of 10 employees who were affected by that conduct and whether all 10 of them need to provide consent. My understanding, if I heard correctly from Dr Heath, was that not all 10 in that scenario would be required to provide consent. My concern with this is that the argument put forward by the opposition that individual consent is necessary is undermined by the fact that if you have multiple alleged victims but then not all of them are required to give consent, that undermines the very argument that is being put forward as to why these are necessary. Can I just confirm that it is the case that if there are multiple victims of unacceptable conduct, not all of those people will be required to provide consent?

Renee HEATH: The intent of these workplace protection orders is obviously to protect workers from harassment, violence and so on. The basis – and hopefully I explained it okay before – of our criminal justice system is consent. That is the reason we are putting these forward. There are nine people there in your scenario that are seeking an order and seeking protection. I think that is well and truly strong enough for an order to be granted.

Michael GALEA: Whilst I would certainly agree with that, I think it does undermine the point of having a requirement for each individual worker to provide that consent if another who is affected is not required to. I would also make the point that throughout the various parts of the workers protection consultation group this issue was not raised by any stakeholders, unions, employers or the community legal sector. Dr Heath, please feel free to respond.

Renee HEATH: Just for clarity, the reason that we say that is because there might be a situation where there is somebody, for instance, that is suffering domestic violence. If there is going to be, then, an order served on that person, that could really heighten the risk for that person that is going through that situation. We know in situations like domestic violence and the like that the most dangerous time in that person’s life is when the perpetrator is alerted to a change that might be coming, whether that is somebody leaving or maybe an intervention order or something being served. That is the intent of this amendment. It is to make sure that, whoever the victim is, they are aware, they have some autonomy and they can be completely supported through this process. I understand what you are asking, but I just want to be very clear on the intent of this amendment and what it should achieve.

Michael GALEA: Dr Heath, whilst I completely understand and appreciate the perspective that you are coming from, I would argue that this is not about domestic family violence, because this is intrinsically about an unknown person coming into someone’s workplace. Again, as we discussed before the break, this is about a cohort, a workplace, it is not about individual alleged victims, which was going to the point of my earlier questioning, but I appreciate the response.

Will a worker’s consent form, the one that you would require under this amendment, be included as part of the paperwork for an application for an order? Would it be submitted to the court?

Renee HEATH: Sadly, my adviser is in his own question time. I would imagine that that is very much an operational decision. I do not know what sort of paperwork is currently done for intervention orders. This is about the principle of it.

Michael GALEA: The reason I ask is because I do think this is actually quite important. It goes to the conversation that we were just having, because if a victim or a person who has received unacceptable conduct does have their name in writing as a record, which would be a potential outcome of this amendment, that could then open that person up to retribution or victimisation on the part of the respondent. I could well imagine, having represented retail workplaces for 10 years, that many people would be extremely cautious about putting their name to something if they knew that their name was going to be the one put forward as a victim as part of these proceedings. I understand you are saying it is an operational decision, but I do think it is critically important, because the consequences of this could, in effect, be to undermine the entire scheme and make the scheme unworkable.

Renee HEATH: Yes, I understand what you are saying, but consent is a principle, and there are many ways you can gain that. Currently we have a legal system where people can get intervention orders. This is a different scenario, but we have systems in place – and if there are not, I assume there are in this legislation – to protect people or other intervention orders; we have got systems in place where that can be protected. Also, you said that the purpose of this bill was not for domestic situations but would really target somebody to whom the offender is unknown. I have not read that anywhere in here, that this specifically targets people or affects people that are not known to the victim. I do not think that is correct. Hopefully I have covered all of that off. I am not sure if Mr Mulholland needs to add anything.

Evan MULHOLLAND: There is not much further to add, Mr Galea. As Dr Heath said, these are matters that are operational. The reason we are doing this is to give victims appropriate right of consent. I understand the place that you are coming from and your background in this space – I too was an SDA member for about five years. They did, though, tell me that I had to join, otherwise I would not get a pay rise, which was the reason why I joined. But I have been in workplace situations where there have been worrying, often violent incidents, so I have obviously called for and understand the purposes behind the bill. But as Dr Heath mentioned, these are operational matters, and the purpose of this amendment is to avoid a situation where an employer or union can potentially seek an order based on information involving a victim without the victim actually agreeing to it.

Michael GALEA: Thank you, Dr Heath and comrade Mulholland – always good to have a fellow shoppie – for those answers. I do remain concerned that the provisions in this amendment would leave open the possibility that victims, whichever way they are defined by you, would have their names put forward, and I can foresee a great deal of issues with that leading to their unwillingness to participate in the process or indeed feeling like they are required to by their employer. If I can just clarify, then: you were saying that this is not resolved, so it is open to the fact that a respondent would possibly have access to a victim’s name, rather than just the whole broad workplace as part of these proceedings?

Renee HEATH: That is certainly not the intent. I do not know if it is appropriate here to ask the minister what the current protections are for someone who is getting an intervention order, but no, that is not the intent. But it does highlight that if we are so worried about that, if that same person that you are talking about, the respondent, then also becomes aware that there is a workplace intervention order or a protection order, I think that actually perfectly sums up why we are putting this forward.

Michael GALEA: If I can just clarify, back to my earlier point: from reading the amendments to the proposed legislation, they read to me like they would require each victim of unacceptable conduct to provide a consent form. Can I just clarify again that that is not the case?

Renee HEATH: No, that is not the case.

Michael GALEA: Would anyone who has provided a consent form for the application of a workplace protection order then have any further obligations as a result of that, including if there were to be a variation motion, and how would you operate that?

Renee HEATH: We have not mentioned anything about a form anywhere in our –

Michael GALEA: The amendment refers to written consent.

Renee HEATH: Well, we have not mentioned that. What we have spoken about is the principle of consent. It operates in a lot of different places in law. This would not be any different. The basis of our criminal justice system and one of its foundations is consent. That is what we are talking about here. We do not mean consent differently as it is understood in any other piece of legislation.

Michael GALEA: Just to confirm, though: from my understanding of the amendment, it does actually say ‘written consent’. Is that correct?

Renee HEATH: I am not sure what part you are referring to, but yes, I will take your word for it. If it says ‘written consent’, it says ‘written consent’. But it does not talk about a form.

Michael GALEA: I acknowledge I probably should not have used the word ‘form’, but written consent is part of the amendment. Can you outline for me how you anticipate this process would work in a practical sense? I have talked around the different hypotheticals, but could you explain, in a consequential way, what the process would be? Would you be putting it on the employer to get an employee’s consent, and how would you be ensuring that that is done without any coercion?

Renee HEATH: I think again that is a very operational question. In many places in law there are many ways you can seek someone’s consent. When you are doing first aid it is ‘Do you mind if I help you?’ That is gaining consent. That is a legal definition, and I do not think me trying to explain that or give it a definition would change anything in law. It is a legal principle.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will not be supporting this amendment for two reasons. Firstly, I think it makes an unworkable scheme even more unworkable. Secondly, taking up some of the points that Mr Galea brought up, I actually think that this is dangerous. It sets up incentives in a way that people may fear providing their consent because they fear retribution or they fear their privacy being breached or they fear legal consequences. If they say, ‘This person did such and such to me,’ and they sign a piece of paper, maybe they are opening themselves up to defamation or something, which I am concerned about. It also sets up the process for retribution. And it is dangerous, because if someone chooses not to provide consent because they have these concerns, then you have still got some dangerous person in the workplace causing trouble. I do not think it will actually help things at all.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Dr Heath’s amendments 11 and 14, which test her amendments 22, 47, 48, 50 and 55 to 57, be agreed to.

Council divided on amendments:

Renee HEATH: I move:

12.   Clause 17, line 7, omit “union.” and insert “union;”.

13.   Clause 17, after line 7 insert –

“(c) a police officer.”.

As it stands, the legislation does not allow for police to apply for workplace protection orders. We are certainly not saying that they should be the primary applicant in every case, but in a lot of cases it could be entirely appropriate for them to be, because they often deal with these people. They know the situation. The intent of this is to allow police to have the power to apply for these orders when the circumstances justify it.

Enver ERDOGAN: The government will not be supporting this amendment. The worker protection schemes will enable unions and retail and transport operators to apply for the order. In coming to that conclusion we did consult with stakeholders, including Victoria Police, and we feel that unions and retail and transport operators are best placed to apply for these orders. They know the workplace, they know what is needed and they have the resources and information at hand. I might leave it there, but the government will not be supporting this amendment.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Given that the Greens are opposing the bill and these orders overall, expanding who can request them would be nonsensical, so we will not be supporting this amendment.

David LIMBRICK: I also will be opposing this amendment. I think this one is also actually pretty dangerous, because it effectively allows police to set up exclusion orders without the consent of the business, and I am not sure that businesses actually want that. I am not sure that the police have the time and resources to do this, and I am not sure whether they want to do this. I do not think that this is actually a good idea at all; therefore I will be opposing it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Dr Heath’s amendments 12 and 13 on Mr Mulholland’s sheet EM84C – which test amendments 15 to 17, 20, 21, 22, 26 to 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37 to 39, 51 to 54, 55 to 57 and 58 to 61 – be agreed to.

Council divided on amendments:

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Finance, Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Government Services) (14:30): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Finance, Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Government Services) (14:30): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

I want to take this opportunity before the bill passes to thank everyone for their contributions and good-faith engagement during the committee stage. I also want to thank everyone who participated in the consultation working group: the Australian Retail Council and major retailers and the trade union movement – in particular the SDA, the Transport Workers’ Union, the Rail, Tram and Bus Union and the United Workers Union – who all played a role in the formation of and advocacy for the bill before the chamber today.

As a final remark, I do want to just acknowledge that the government continues to consult. We did hear the Australian Retail Council’s interest and concern around the interim order scheme, and that is why, just before the bill finally passes, I announce that the government will undertake a targeted operational review nine months from the date of commencement of the WPO scheme to consider how applications are progressing and whether the Victorian scheme would benefit from the introduction of an interim order mechanism. This will be in addition to the three-year legislative review. We are going to do further consultation and further review. I think it is a good conclusion. It shows that we continue to consult, as always, and we always look to make improvements.

Council divided on motion:

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the bill without amendment.